Supreme Court Questions Meta and WhatsApp Over Data Privacy in India
INDIAN DEFENCE
India’s Supreme Court has taken a strong judicial stance against Meta Platforms and its widely used messaging service WhatsApp over concerns that their privacy policy may compromise the right to privacy of Indian citizens.
In a hearing held on February 3, 2026, the Court questioned the legality and fairness of WhatsApp’s data-sharing practices with Meta entities and indicated that user consent, as currently obtained by the company, may be insufficient and misleading.
At the heart of the dispute is WhatsApp’s controversial 2021 privacy policy update, which expanded the scope of data shared with Meta and required users to accept these terms to continue using the service. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) had previously found that this “take-it-or-leave-it” model abused WhatsApp’s dominant position in India’s online messaging market. The regulator imposed a ₹213.14 crore penalty on Meta Platforms and directed that service access should not be contingent on broad data sharing without genuine user choice.
Meta and WhatsApp appealed the CCI order before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). In November 2025, the appellate tribunal upheld the financial penalty but relaxed parts of the order, including a stay on a five-year ban on advertising-related data sharing. However, certain remedial directives aimed at improving transparency and opt-out mechanisms were reinstated, leading both sides to approach the Supreme Court for final resolution.
Judicial Concerns Over Consent and Privacy Rights
During the Supreme Court proceedings, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed deep concern about how Meta and WhatsApp obtain and interpret user consent. The Court noted that the privacy policy’s language and structure may not constitute “clear, informed, and voluntary” consent, especially for ordinary users such as elderly people or those in rural areas who are unlikely to understand complex legal jargon embedded in digital terms and conditions.
Chief Justice Kant remarked that the right to privacy is a constitutionally protected fundamental right that cannot be diluted in the name of data sharing or corporate convenience. “You can’t play with the right to privacy of citizens of this country in the name of data sharing,” he stated, signaling the judiciary’s unwillingness to tolerate any erosion of basic rights for commercial benefit.
The Bench also underscored that WhatsApp’s dominant position in India’s communication landscape leaves users with little realistic choice. Because the platform is the default messaging medium for millions of Indians, declining the policy effectively meant forfeiting access to everyday communication tools. This scenario, the Court said, resembles a coercive model rather than genuinely voluntary consent.
Allegations of Exploitation and “Data Theft”
Multiple media reports and courtroom observations described the Supreme Court’s criticism of the data-sharing arrangement as tantamount to the exploitation of citizens’ personal information. In some remarks, the judicial bench characterized the current model as a “mockery of constitutionalism” and suggested it could be viewed as a “decent way of committing theft” of private data if users have no meaningful choice or understanding.
Justices on the Bench pressed Meta’s representatives to explain how data such as device information, transaction data, and metadata are aggregated and monetized, particularly for targeted advertising. While WhatsApp maintains that message contents are end-to-end encrypted and inaccessible to the company, the court pointed out that data beyond message text — including metadata and behavioural patterns — can still be analysed and used for commercial purposes.
Senior advocates appearing for Meta and WhatsApp argued that users do have the right to opt out of data sharing, and that the company’s practices fall within existing legal frameworks. They also cited the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023, which establishes broad guidelines for processing personal data and provides a compliance timeline until May 2027. However, the Supreme Court noted that this statute is not yet in force and therefore cannot justify present practices that may undermine fundamental rights.
Government Involvement and Wider Implications
In its deliberations, the Court permitted the Union government to be impleaded as a party in the case, allowing the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to file its response. This signals that the judgment could have far-reaching implications for India’s evolving data protection regime and digital regulation framework.
The controversy also comes at a time when countries around the world are increasing scrutiny of big tech companies’ data practices. In the European Union, for example, Meta has faced regulatory pushback under GDPR rules and has been compelled to clarify privacy terms. India’s judiciary seems poised to ensure that similar accountability and protection of digital rights are upheld domestically.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court has reserved interim directions and is set to hear further arguments in early February 2026. At this hearing, the Court is expected to establish whether WhatsApp must halt certain data-sharing practices until the final judgment or impose conditions that Meta must follow to continue operating in India without violating privacy rights.
For millions of Indians who rely on WhatsApp daily — for personal chats, business communication, and social connection — the outcome of this case could influence how digital platforms handle data going forward. It also raises broader questions about user autonomy, corporate power, and the scope of regulatory oversight in the digital age. With data becoming an increasingly valuable economic and social resource, how courts balance individual privacy rights with technological innovation and business models will remain a defining issue for years to come.